Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26

Earthquakes and Structures, Vol. 4, No.

6 (2013) 685-710
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/eas.2013.4.6.685 685

Equivalent lateral force method for buildings with setback:


adequacy in elastic range
Rana Roy1 and Somen Mahato2a
1
Department of Applied Mechanics, Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, India

(Received March 30, 2011, Revised April 16, 2012, Accepted December1, 2012)

Abstract. Static torsional provisions employing equivalent lateral force method (ELF) require that the
earthquake-induced lateral force at each story be applied at a distance equal to design eccentricity (ed) from a
reference resistance centre of the corresponding story. Such code torsional provisions, albeit not explicitly
stated, are generally believed to be applicable to the regularly asymmetric buildings. Examined herein is the
applicability of such code-torsional provisions to buildings with set-back using rigid as well as flexible
diaphragm model. Response of a number of set-back systems computed through ELF with static torsional
provisions is compared to that by response spectrum based procedure. Influence of infill wall with a range of
opening is also investigated. Results of comprehensive parametric studies suggest that the ELF may, with
rational engineering judgment, be used for practical purposes taking some care of the surroundings of the
setback for stiff systems in particular.
Keywords: irregular; torsion; seismic; code-provisions; elastic

1. Introduction

Geometry of the structure is often dictated by the architectural and functional requirements
whereas the safety of the structure with optimum economy - the key design aim - is ensured by
structural engineers. For instance, a stepped form (setback systems) of buildings is often adopted
by the architects for adequate daylight and ventilation in the lower stories of the buildings in an
urban locality where closely spaced tall buildings are expected. Such setback structures form an
important sub-class of irregular structures wherein irregularities are characterized by
discontinuities in the distribution of mass, stiffness and strength along the height of the building.
Research progress for systems with irregularity in elevation is scarce primarily owing to the
relative difficulty to characterize such systems (Kusumastuti et al. 1998). Studies (e.g., Humar and
Wright 1977, Aranda 1984, Moehle and Alarcon 1986) up to mid-1980 on seismic response and
relevant code provisions of systems with symmetric setback have been reviewed in the literature
(Wood 1986). A simple definition to measure irregularity of such systems has been proposed and
used in the recent works (Mazzolani and Piluso 1996, Karavasilis et al. 2008). Simplified method

Corresponding author, Associate Professor, E-mail: rroybec@yahoo.com


a
Formerly Graduate Student

Copyright © 2013 Techno-Press, Ltd.


http://www.techno-press.org/?journal=eas&subpage=7 ISSN: 2092-7614 (Print), 2092-7622 (Online)
686 Rana Roy and Somen Mahato

to obtain lateral load distribution in symmetric and eccentric set-back systems has been developed
using the concept of compatible load profile (Cheung and Tso 1987). Illustrations therein
demonstrate the possibility of higher damage potential in members near the set-back. Subsequent
analytical and experimental studies (Shahrooz and Moehle 1990) also corroborate such
observation. It is reported elsewhere (Wood 1992, Pinto and Costa 1995, Mazzolani and Piluso
1996, Kappos and Scott 1998, Romao et al. 2004) that the seismic response of setback systems is
not significantly different from regular systems. While the effectiveness of the first mode of
vibration to represent displacement response is observed in some study (Wong and Tso 1994),
significant participation of higher modes is also noted elsewhere (Athanassiadou 2008, Karavasilis
et al. 2008). The relative vulnerability associated to mass, strength and stiffness irregularities is
examined in the literature (Al-Ali and Krawinkler 1998). Thus, contradictions exist and the
progress in understanding seismic behavior of set-back buildings is rather slow. Although
relatively simple method for the analysis of setback buildings is pursued (Basu and
Gopalakrishnan 2008), major building codes (IS 1893-1984 2002, ASCE 7 2005, Eurocode 8
2004), to date, recommend for dynamic analysis for the design of setback buildings. The codes
further recommend that the base shear obtained from the dynamic analysis (and thereby, other
response quantities) to be scaled up to that from the code specified empirical formula.
Seismic codes permit equivalent static procedure (ELF) usually for regular buildings. In
equivalent static analysis, the design base shear is estimated as a product of seismic weight and
codified seismic coefficient associated to fundamental period of vibration. Such seismic coefficient
takes into account the importance and ductility capacity of the structure as well as the type of
soil and seismic activity of the region. For asymmetric system, building codes (e.g., IAEE 1997)
specify that the earthquake-induced lateral force so computed be statically applied with an
eccentricity equal to design eccentricity (ed) relative to some reference center of resistance. Such
design eccentricities are outlined in the forms of primary design eccentricity, ed1j and secondary
design eccentricity, ed2j, at any typical j-th story, as given below
ed 1 j   e j   D
ed 2 j   e j   D (1)

where D is the plan dimension of the building normal to the direction of ground motion and ej is
the static eccentricity at jth story. The first part is a function of static eccentricity - real distance
between center of mass and center of resistance. Dynamic amplification factor α in ed1 is intended
to compensate for the dynamic effect of torsional response through static analysis. Factor δ in ed2
specifies the portion of the torsion-induced so-called negative shear that can be reduced for the
design of stiff-side elements. The second part, referred to as accidental eccentricity, is expressed as
a fraction of plan dimension, i.e., βD (normal to the direction of ground motion and is introduced
to account for the imponderables). For each element, the value of ed yielding greater force should
be used in design.
However, a lack of unanimously acceptable definition of reference centre of resistance for
multistory buildings often appears to be a major setback to implement such static procedure. A
search for proper resistance centre reveals a number of alternatives (e.g., Poole 1977, Humar 1984,
Riddell and Vasquez 1984, Smith and Vezina 1985, Cheung and Tso 1986, Hejal and Chopra 1987,
Tso 1990, Goel and Chopra 1993, Jiang et al. 1993, Makarios and Anastassiadis 1998). Such
alternative reference centres, despite being placed at differing locations, often lead to similar
response (Harasimowicz and Goel 1998). This observation fundamentally implies that the
Equivaleent lateral forcce method for buildings witth setback: adequacy in elasstic range 687

traditioonal notion of applicabiility of codee-torsional provisions to regularly aasymmetric systems s


(wheree centre of mass
m and cenntre of resistaance are alig gned along twwo vertical llines separateed by a
constannt distance) may be over-restrictivee. Limited studies (Das and Nau 20003, Trembllay and
Poncett 2005) coveering systems with mass and some sp pecific form of vertical iirregularity, in fact,
suggesst the conservvativeness off code-impossed limitation to ELF.
Witth this backddrop, the goal of the preesent investigation is sett to explore the applicab bility of
equivaalent lateral force metho od (ELF) to buildings with w setback where resisstance centrees may
dramattically vary storey-wisee and thus to avoid th he complexiities of the dynamic analysis
a
recomm mended for these
t systemms. In this coontext, buildiings are mod deled as rigidd diaphragm system
in geneeral. Moreovver, the influeence of floorr flexibility is also examined and com mpared.

Fig. 1 Configurration of strucctural modelss showing cen


ntre of mass (CM),
( centre of rigidity (C
CR)
annd shear centree (CS)
688 Rana Roy and Somen Mahato

Table 1 Dynamic characteristics of buildings with associated irregularity indices


Irregularity Index Dynamic characteristics
no. of story

Identificati
Maximum
Sl. No.

Model

on Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3


b s avg. T T T
  
(sec.) (sec.) (sec.)
1 3 M-IR1 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.367 0.858 0.244 0.057 0.135 0.068
2 3 M-IR2 2.00 1.25 1.63 0.362 0.828 0.217 0.028 0.140 0.136
3 3 M-IR3 1.25 2.00 1.63 0.333 0.814 0.234 0.118 0.122 0.050
4 3 M-IR4 1.75 1.75 1.75 0.326 0.770 0.183 0.161 0.121 0.055
5 3 M-IR5 1.75 1.75 1.75 0.303 0.727 0.218 0.207 0.120 0.057
6 3 M-IR6 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.306 0.701 0.158 0.217 0.134 0.079
7 6 M-IR7 1.75 1.30 1.53 0.623 0.708 0.562 0.167 0.326 0.058
8 9 M-IR8 1.52 1.19 1.36 0.957 0.706 0.860 0.144 0.529 0.076
*
 represents participating mass ratio for excitation in Y-direction (Refer to Fig. 1) and
EI for all columns = 8.54 × 107 Nm2

Table 2 Eccentricities (distance between CM and shear centre in metre) in representative setback buildings
with and without floor flexibility corresponding to LP-I
M IR 4 MIR 7 MIR 8
Sr. No. No of story
Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible
1 St-1 2.54 2.50 2.66*2 2.65 2.13 2.11
2 St-2 1.10 1.01 3.00 2.92 2.23 2.18
3 St-3 0.00*1 -0.06 1.13 1.04 2.44 2.32
4 St-4 - - 1.52 1.45 2.87 2.41
5 St-5 - - 0.01 -0.06*3 0.84 0.87
6 St-6 - - 0.01 -0.01 1.05 0.98
7 St-7 - - - - 1.48 1.27
8 St-8 - - - - 0.02 -0.06
9 St-9 - - - - 0.05 -0.03
*1
At CM; *2To the right of CM; *3To the left of CM

Table 3 Uncoupled dynamic characteristics of fundamental mode of vibration

Irregularity
Identification

Diaphragm

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3


Index
Type of
Sl. No.

Model

TL Tθ TL Tθ TL Tθ
b s Tθ/TL Tθ/TL Tθ/TL
(sec.) (sec.) (sec.) (sec.) (sec.) (sec.)
Rigid 0.309 0.177 0.572 0.136 0.096 0.705 0.098 0.069 0.706
1 MIR 4 1.75 1.75
Flexible 0.314 0.266 0.848 0.227 0.153 0.674 0.139 0.091 0.650
Rigid 0.574 0.311 0.542 0.240 0.160 0.667 0.221 0.110 0.497
2 MIR 7 1.75 1.30
Flexible 0.575 0.350 0.609 0.243 0.242 0.999 0.227 0.226 0.996
Rigid 0.892 0.506 0.567 0.353 0.236 0.669 0.221 0.136 0.616
3 MIR 8 1.52 1.19
Flexible 0.893 0.533 0.597 0.355 0.289 0.814 0.227 0.254 1.117
*1
At CM; *2To the right of CM; *3To the left of CM
Equivaleent lateral forcce method for buildings witth setback: adequacy in elasstic range 689

2. Dettails of stru
uctural sys
stems

Thrree, six and nine story sy


ystems are cconsidered ass representattives of low, medium and high-
rise buuildings. Thrree story moodels (annotaated as MIR R 1 through MIR 6) with th different feasible
f
forms of set-back are considered. Further, r, medium an nd high-rise buildings arre examined d in the
samplee form consiidering one six
s story (MIIR 7) and on ne nine story system (MIR R 8). Such systems
s
are schhematically presented inn Fig. 1. Irreegularity Ind
dices (Φb, Φs) of the sysstems propossed and
utilizedd elsewhere (Mazzolani and Piluso 11996, Karavaasilis et al. 20008, Sarkar eet al. 2010, Mahato
M
et al. 22012), are coomputed as follows
f andfu
furnished in Table
T 1 to reecognize the nature of elevation
irregullarity.

1 i nb 1 H i 1 i ns 1 Li
b  
nb  1 i 1 H i1
and  s  
ns  1 i1 Li 1
(2)

where ns is the num mber of storyy, nb is the nuumber of baay in the firstt story, L is llength of bay
y and H
is heigght of story. L and H are chosen as 5 .0m and 3.5m m unless othherwise speciified. Length h of the
bay in the directionn normal to set-back
s is allso kept equaal to 5.0m.
Loccation of cenntre of resisstance variess as per diffferent definitions and iss also known n to be
dependdent on the distribution
d o lateral loadd. Height-wiise distribution of laterall load is assu
of umed as
k
wi H i where w and H aree the weight and height of o ith story an
nd k is an exxponent. Valu ues of k
i i
ns

w H
k
i i
i 1
are chhosen as 1.0 and 2.0 in load profilee LP-I and LP-II, respeectively. Genneralized ceentre of
rigidityy (CR) and shear centrre (CS) in eeach story as defined in n the literatuure (Tso 199 90) are
presennted in Fig. 1.
1 Such centrres are compputed assum ming the floorr diaphragm as rigid. Ho owever,
CS is aalso computeed for typical low, mediuum and high rise building gs accountingg floor flexib
bility as
outlineed in the literature (Basu
u and Jain 20004). Such sttudy considers thickness of the floor slab as
150 mm m and a heigght-wise distribution of laateral load co
onforming to
o LP-I. It willl be apparen
nt in the
follow
wing sections that such reeference poin ints are comp puted only to
t gauge relaative irregulaarity of
the buiildings and bear
b no relevance to impllement code--static proced dure.

Fig. 2 Equivalennt diagonal co


ompressive strrut model to reepresent infill walls under llateral load
(exxtracted from Kose 2009)
690 Rana Roy and Somen Mahato

2.1 Modeling of infill wall

Buildings are usually analyzed as bare frames in practice. However, lateral force induced shear
causes in-plane lateral deformation in the infill wall. Such mode of deformation tends to elongate
one diagonal and shorten the other of each panel of a building frame. However, the brick infill
within the panel resists against the shortening of the diagonals only. Thus the effect of infill wall,
in the linear elastic range, may be modeled using truss member connected to beam-column joints
through hinges. Such “equivalent strut” (Smith 1962, Smith and Carter 1969, Mainstone and
Weeks 1970, Mainstone 1971) is introduced along one diagonal only with similar attributes in both
tension and compression. This, from the view point of mechanics, is analogous to the inclusion of
two ‘compression only’ truss member along two diagonals of the panel in linear elastic range. The
effective width (a) of such equivalent struts having actual diagonal length (rinf) and wall thickness
(tinf) is determined following the recommendation given in FEMA 306 (FEMA 306 1998). The
equivalent width of a diagonal compressive strut, a, is given by

a  0.175(1 hcol ) 0.4 rinf (3)


1

where, 1   E me t inf sin 2  in which   tan 1  hinf  , h and I respectively stand for centre to
4

L  col. col.
 4 E fe I col hinf   inf 
centre height and moment of inertia of column (m4); hinf and Linf represent height and length of
infill wall (also refer to Fig. 2). Modulus of elasticity of infill wall (Eme) and the modulus of
elasticity of frame elements (Efe) are assumed as 6300 MPa and 25,000 MPa respectively.
Thicknesses of outer and inner infill wall are taken as 230 mm and 115 mm respectively.
To account for the effect of opening due to doors and windows, width of the compressive struts
so estimated is modified by stiffness reduction co-efficient λgraphic as outlined in the literature
(Asterris 2003, Kose 2009). In the parametric study, values of such opening percentage are taken
as 0, 10, 25, 50 and 100 respectively. It may be mentioned that the case with 100% opening
represents popularly used bare frames, while the first one (0% opening) corresponds to no opening
at all. Representative systems (MIR-4, MIR-7 and MIR-8) with three, six and nine stories are
analyzed to realize the impact of infill.

2.2 Dynamic characteristics

Free vibration characteristics of bare frames modeled as rigid diaphragm are presented in Table
1. Natural periods, mode shapes are computed corresponding to translational (Y) and torsional
Z) degrees of freedom. The participating mass ratio (), defined for nth mode as
 f yn 2 , isabout
(rotation
also computed. fyn ( f yn   n m y ) is the participation factor where my is the load
T

My
corresponding to unit acceleration and My is the total unrestrained mass in Y-direction. The mode
shapes (φ) are normalized such that  nT M n  1 in which M is the global mass matrix (SAP 2000,
Sarkar et al. 2010). For torsionally coupled systems, relative proximity of the uncoupled lateral
and torsional periods of the systems is known to be a useful indicator of torsional vulnerability.
Thus, uncoupled lateral (TL) and torsional (T) periods are also computed for the systems chosen.
Uncoupled fundamental lateral periods are computed by standard eigen-value analysis
constraining the stories to translate in Y-direction only. To assess uncoupled torsional periods,
mass moment of inertia at each floor is specified only (with no translational mass). Subsequent
Equivaleent lateral forcce method for buildings witth setback: adequacy in elasstic range 691

eigen-vvalue analyssis leads to uncoupled torsional mode m of vibration about some torsio on axis
dependding on the relative disstribution off mass in vaarious storiees. Relative proximity of o such
uncouppled torsionaal to lateral periods, quuantified as τ = T/TL, appears
a indiccative of thee likely
couplinng between lateral and torsional
t moodes of the systems.
s Succh quantitiess, for represeentative
cases, are presenteed in Table 3 for both riggid and flexib ble floor (slaab thickness:: 150 mm) sy ystems.
It is oobserved thaat the systemms chosen aare torsionally stiff (τ <1.0)
< and heence code-to orsional
provisiions may be relevant. Lo ow torsional sstiffness in an
a asymmetriic building ccauses the rottational
modess to have a more important role in the deformaations of thee elements. The corresp ponding
changee in dynamiccs of torsion nally flexiblee (τ >1.0) bu uildings is such that thee pattern of seismic
s
demannd in the eleements is no ot in agreem ment with th he strength distribution
d ssuggested byy static
torsionnal provisionns (Mogadhaam and Tso 2000). A caareful scrutin ny reveals thhat the influeence of
floor fflexibility maay increase the
t lateral peeriod margin nally. Howev ver, the corrresponding inncrease
of torssional periodd may be as high
h as 50% particularly for low-rise systems. Thhus, the param meter τ
may siignificantly increase (about 48% in MIR-4) and d hence may alter the seeismic behav viour of
coupleed systems (rrefer to Tablee 3).

Fig. 3(a) Torsioonal to lateraal coupling inn different paarticipating modes


m of vibrration of sam
mple
buuilding model with rigid diaaphragm

Fig. 3(b) Torsional to lateraal coupling inn different paarticipating modes


m of vibrration of sam
mple
buuilding model with flexible diaphragm (1 50 mm thk flo oor slab)
692 Rana Roy and Somen Mahato

p
To achieve further insight into the mode coupling phenomenon,  1 , where of ∆p and ∆c are
c
displacements of the perimeter frame and centroid of the deck respectively, is graphically
presented in Fig. 3 along with the coupled natural periods and participating mass ratio in each
mode. ∆p is recorded on the edge where translational and torsional displacements are additive. Fig.
3 shows that, for fundamental mode of vibration, influence of torsion relative to translation is
subdued. Dominance of translational vibration in the first coupled mode is also confirmed from
associated  (in the range of 70% to 86%) and hence the systems are torsioanlly stiff. It may
further be noticed that, although both the coupled periods and corresponding  closely remain
stable, order of coupling in higher modes may potentially change due to floor flexibility.
It seems apparent from a thoughtful observation to Table 1 that, as arithmetic average of b and
s decreases implying a tendency towards regularity in configuration, contribution of torsion
dominated second mode usually diminishes and the participation of the translation dominated
fundamental mode increases. Thus, the simple irregularity index (b, s) appears to be compatible
with the important dynamic characteristics of the systems at least qualitatively. In this context, it
may also be interesting to asses fundamental building period using codified formula such as
Tl  0.0731h 3 / 4 (UBC 1997), where h is the overall height of the building. Fundamental period of
buildings without infill is evaluated as 0.43 sec, 0.72 sec. and 0.92 sec. for three, six and nine story
systems respectively. This shows that the building period of this class of low to medium-rise
systems may generally be shorter than what by code-specified empirical formula. As further
evidence, an authoritative study (Goel and Chopra 1997) developing formula to estimate
fundamental period of vibration of moment resisting frames may be referred. Such investigation,
on the basis of ‘measured’ data on vibration period of a large number of buildings during real
earthquakes, identified the similar limitation of empirical formula outlined in the code. Inadequacy
of code-based empirical formulae is also pointed out in another illuminating study (Harasimowicz
and Goel 1998). Thus, the codified formula for building periods need be re-evaluated since a
higher estimate of period may often result in underestimating the design force.
Dynamic characteristics of buildings with infill (50% opening assumed) are assessed and
compared to those of the bare frames using rigid diaphragm model. Results, though not presented
herein (but available in Mahato 2012), show that fundamental period reduces by around 20% due
to the stiffening effect of infill wall for low to high rise systems. Systems are, however, observed
to be torsionally stiff and hence the application of code-torsional provisions may be warranted.

3. Method of analysis

Response of the structures excited in Y-direction is first calculated by equivalent lateral force
(ELF) method. To this end, fundamental period of the system is estimated employing empirical
formula outlined in the code (UBC 1997). Subsequently, base shear (V0) is computed through
multiplying the relevant spectral ordinate by seismic weight (refer to Table 4). Zone factor Z is
assumed as 0.2, while seismic co-efficients Ca and Cv are chosen as 0.24 and 0.32 respectively.
Considering occupancy importance factor as unity and response reduction factor for ordinary
moment resisting frames (OMRF) as 3.5, design base shear is computed as per relevant guideline
of UBC 97 (UBC 1997). Design base shear so calculated is distributed over the building height
Equivaleent lateral forcce method for buildings witth setback: adequacy in elasstic range 693

Table 4 Basic seism


mic design parameters
Seismicc weight (kN)
Maximum

Identificat
Designn base
no. of
Sl. No.

Model
story

ion
Story 5 Stoory 8 shearr (kN)
Story 1 Stoory 2 Story 3 Story 4
to 7 &9 [U BC C 97]

1 M-IR1 1350 1 350 900 - - - 62


20
2 M-IR2 1350 9900 900 - - - 54
40
3 M-IR3 1350 1 350 450 - - - 54
40
3
4 M-IR4 1350 9900 450 - - - 46
65
5 M-IR5 1350 9900 450 - - - 46
65
6 M-IR6 1350 4450 450 - - - 38
85
7 6 M-IR7 1350 1 350 900 900 450 - 69
90
8 9 M-IR8 1350 1 350 0
1350 1350 900 4450 85
50

Fig. 4(a) Differennt Steps of analysis for ELF


F method with
hout locating center of resiistance (after Goel
and Chopra 1993))

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

ENTRAL NOD
*CE DES OF BOT
TH ENDS OF No-torsion
N ondition in buildings with
co
THEE DIAPHRAG
GMS ARE COONSTRAINED D fllexible floor
TO ENSURE EQQUAL HORIZZONTAL diaphragm:
d
SPLACEMEN
DIS NT (ii) Un-deformeed floor diaphrhragm;
(iii) Deflected shape of flooor slab undeer in-
# LA
ATERAL LOA AD PROPORT RTION TO TH HE plane loading with
w torsion;
MAASS DISTRIBU UTION ALON NG THE (iiii) Deflected shape of floorr slab under in
n-
FLOOOR LENGTH H plane loading without
w torsion
on.
Fig. 4(b) Procedure
P for analysis in fleexible diaphraagm system (after Basu andd Jain 2004)
694 Rana Roy and Somen Mahato

according to LP-I and LP-II. Following major seismic codes, three combinations of  and  are
chosen. Static lateral load analysis is conducted utilizing the procedure developed elsewhere (Goel
and Chopra 1993, Basu and Jain 2004) and is summarized below for convenience.
ELF is implemented by combining the results of three sets of analyses performed through
standard frame analysis software (ETABS; SAP 2000) as described below.
Step 1: The asymmetric buildings are restricted to deform only in the Y-direction by
constraining the floor rotations. Such restriction is ensured by introducing hinges at each story in
case of rigid diaphragm system (refer to Fig.4(a)). On the other hand, for flexible floor system,
since the floor can translate, bend and twist under lateral load, ‘no-torsional rotation of floor’ is
redefined as identical horizontal displacement of centre nodes of both ends of the diaphragm (refer
to Fig. 4(b)). This condition is achieved by setting equal constraints (SAP 2000) in Y-translation to
centre nodes of both ends of each floor. Systems so modeled are analyzed with the code-specified
lateral forces applied at the floor CM for rigid diaphragm system and as a distributed force
(proportional to mass distribution) for flexible floor system. The response quantities of such
restrained systems are denoted as Rr. It is evident that the procedure outlined for flexible floor
model is generic and may also be applied to rigid floor system.
Step 2: Buildings modeled as three-dimensional frame are then analyzed. Code-specified
lateral forces are applied as stated in Step 1 to compute the corresponding response R0.
Step 3: Buildings are re-analyzed for the code-specified floor torques equal to βDjFyj to obtain
Rac, i.e., the contribution of accidental eccentricity on the desired response (Fyj is the lateral load in
the ith story). In flexible floor model, such floor torque is simulated by application of a compatible
lateral load (refer to Basu and Jain 2004).
Finally, the responses Rd(1) and Rd(2) are obtained by combining Rr, R0 and Rac as follows

 (1   ) Rr  R0  Rac
(1)
Rd (4a)

 (1   ) Rr  R0  Rac
( 2)
Rd (4b)

The algebraic sign of Rac should be the one that increases the magnitude obtained from the sum
of the first two terms. The design value of the desired response is taken as the larger of two
obtained from Rd(1) and Rd(2). In case of restriction to reduce the response due to torsion-induced
negative shear, the design value is the highest of Rd(1), Rd(2) and Rr.
The above approach is preferred in view of (a) the variability of the location of resistance
centres with the distribution of lateral load and (b) the difference in torsional response due to floor
forces applied at CR and story shears acting at CS for setback buildings (with unequal deck
dimensions) when accidental eccentricity is accounted (Basu and Jain 2006). Simultaneously,
responses of all the buildings are computed by dynamic response spectrum analysis (using design
spectrum of UBC 97) combining modal responses by complete quadratic combination (CQC)
(Chopra 2007). Adequate numbers of modes are considered so that at least 95 percent of the total
seismic mass is captured. Following codal recommendation, response quantities obtained from
dynamic analysis is scaled by a factor equal to V0/Vdyna where Vdyna is the base shear from dynamic
analysis. Thus, the trend in results presented herein is generic and does not depend on the choice
of code and other related factors such as Z, Ca and Cv etc.
Equivalent lateral force method for buildings with setback: adequacy in elastic range 695

4. Results and discussions

4.1 Rigid floor system

Maximum response in terms of frame shear, maximum inter-story drift is computed through
ELF employing lateral load conforming to both LP-I and LP-II. Three sets of  and 
combinations, viz.,  = 1.0,  = 0.5 (NBCC 1990);  = 1.5,  =1.0 (IS 1893-1984 (2002, Mexico
1990) and  = 1.0,  =1.0 (NZS 4203 19984) are used. Such response is normalized by the
companion quantities obtained from response spectrum based analysis and is presented through
Fig. 5 to Fig.10 for rigid floor systems.
Fig. 5(a) presents the height-wise variation of normalized frames shear in the perimeter frames (as
the effect of torsion is maximum in the edge) of three story buildings corresponding to the
distribution of design base shear as per LP-I (in ELF). Response of flexible side considering  =
1.0 (NZS 4203 19984) is observed to consistently underestimate the response. However, it appears
that the response of the flexible side may often be reasonably predicted by taking  = 1.5, although
such response may be somewhat underestimated in the higher stories near the set-back in
particular. Such concentration of force in the upper story elements in the surroundings of the set-
back indicates significant participation of higher modes. This observation is in line with those of a
few earlier works (e.g., Cheung and Tso 1987, Shahrooz and Moehle 1990). Response of stiff side
may, however, be estimated with an error limit of around 22-25% for the values of  specified in
the the codes. Results of MIR 7 and MIR 8 presented in Fig. 5(b) displays a similar trend. Fig. 6,
on the other hand, describing representative results corresponding to a load profile compatible with
LP-II (in ELF), substantially overestimate the response particularly in higher stories. It may be
recalled that the value of the exponent k involved in the definition of load distribution has been
recommended as unity (as chosen in LP-I) in IBC 2003 (IBC 2003) for buildings with fundamental
period lesser than 0.5 sec. Thus, such distribution (LP-I) appears to be useful also for setback
buildings and is adopted in rest of the study along with the values of  and  as 1.5 and 0.5
respectively (unless otherwise specified)
Fig. 7(a) describes the variation of similar response parameter as a function of change of bay
length, while such response with change of story heights is presented in Fig. 7(b). Bay length is
considered to vary in the range of 4.0m to 6.0m whereas the story height is ranging between 3.0 m
to 5.0 m to cover the practical range of interest. This includes a panel aspect ratio of 0.58 to 1.0.
Values of  and  are assumed as 1.5 and 0.5 respectively. It is observed that the variation of
normalized response is relatively insensitive to the aspect ratio of panel excepting in the
neighbourhood of 0.7.
Infill wall is observed to substantially alter the dynamic characteristics of the system. Thus, the
performance of ELF is re-examined considering the effect of infill wall. Influence of opening due
to doors and windows is taken into account through considering an opening of 0%, 10%, 25%, 50
% and 100% in the infill wall. Normalized frame shear in perimeter frames at different stories
of MIR 4, MIR 7 and MIR 8 are presented in Fig. 8 for a height-wise distribution of lateral load as
per LP-I and LP-II, respectively. It seems that beyond 25% to 30% of opening, influence of infill
wall on the response of flexible side may be marginal. Stiff side, however, does not show any
systematic trend.
It may be stated that, while frame shear may be used directly in design of frame elements,
maximum inter-story drift may also be useful to envisage the seismic performance for both
696 Rana Rooy and Somen
n Mahato

Fig. 5(a) Variattion of normaalized frame sshear in perim


meter frames of low-rise b uildings (lateeral
loaad profile: LP
P-I)
Equivaleent lateral forcce method for buildings witth setback: adequacy in elasstic range 697

Fig. 5(b) Variatiion of normalized frame shhear in perimetter frames of medium


m & higgh-rise buildin
ngs
(laateral load proofile: LP-I

Fig. 6 Variationn of normalized frame shhear in perim


meter frames of
o low, mediu
ium & high-rrise
buuildings (lateraal load profilee: LP-II)
698 Rana Rooy and Somen
n Mahato

Fig. 7(a) Variattion of normalized frame shhear in perim


meter frames of
o medium-risee buildings with
w
chhange of bay leength

Fig. 7(b) Variattion of normaalized frame shhear in perim


meter frames of
o medium-risse buildings with
w
chhange of bay leength
Equivaleent lateral forcce method for buildings witth setback: adequacy in elasstic range 699

Fig. 8 Variationn of normalizeed frame shearr in perimeter frames with change


c of opeening percentaage
in infill wall (Looad profile: LP-I)

Fig. 9 Variationn of maximum m inter-story drrift obtained from


fr ELF (lateeral load profiile: LP-I and LP-
L
II)) and normalizzed to spectrum based respoonse
700 Rana Rooy and Somen
n Mahato

Fig. 10 Variatioon of normaliized frame shhear in perimeeter frames off buildings w


with open grou
und
stoory and bare frame
f model (Load Profile: LP-I)

structuural and non--structural elements. Varriation of norrmalized max ximum inter--story drift over
o the
height of the builddings (MIR 4, MIR 7 aand MIR 8) is shown in n Fig. 9. Ressults are com mputed
considdering bare frrame model and also witth infill effecct (50% open ning). Resultts of ELF aree found
to be in fair agreeement with dynamic annalysis partiicularly for medium to high-rise sy ystems.
Howevver, normalizzed inter-storry drift appe ars to be oveerestimated in case of LPP-II (Fig. 9(b)). This
is in linne with the earlier
e respon
nse scenario in terms of frame
f shear parameter
p (FFig. 6).
Buiildings are often
o found to
t be open inn ground story in order tot accommoddate garagess, shops
etc. Reesponse of suuch system may m be criti cal at the sooft ground sto
ory level witth no infill wall.
w In
this coontext, it mayy be interestiing to examiine the respo
onse of these systems in tthe backdrop p of the
bare frrame behavioor. Soft story y buildings aare assumed to have 100% infill walll in all higheer story
panels. Normalized frame shear of buildinngs (MIR 4,, MIR 7 and d MIR 8) foor two abovee-stated
cases, as furnishedd in Fig. 10, suggests cloose resemblaance particulaarly for flexiible side. Hoowever,
this obbservation obbtained from elastic moddels deserves further scruttiny in view of the limitaation of
the elaastic methodd to accoun nt for the liikely effect of localizattion on storry displacem ment to
significant stiffness irregularityy.

4.2
2 Flexible flo
oor system

MIRR4, MIR7 annd MIR8 aree analyzed coonsidering flloor flexibiliity (diaphraggm thickness of 100
mm, 150 mm and 250 2 mm assu umed) excludding the effeect of infill wall.
w Height-w wise distribu
ution of
lateral load complyying with LP
P-I is chosenn considering
g the effectivveness of thee same for thhe class
Equivaleent lateral forcce method for buildings witth setback: adequacy in elasstic range 701

of builldings chosenn. Response quantities caalculated by ELF are normalized by tthose from dynamic
analysis. In view of o lack of sysstematic trennd on the inffluence of diaaphragm flexxibility, variaation in
frame shear is envveloped by mean m plus annd mean min nus standardd deviation ccurves. Variaation of
such nnormalized frrame shear quantity
q com
mputed using rigid floor model
m is alsoo superimpoosed for
compaarison (refer to Fig. 11). Moreover, tto recognizee the order of o dispersionn due to diap phragm
flexibiility, co-efficcient of variaation (COV)) of the norm
malized fram me shear paraameter is com mputed
(Fig. 112). Such quaantity is obseerved to be nnot more than n about 0.02 for low andd high rise bu uildings
while the same may m be aroun nd 0.06 to 00.09 in med dium-rise sy ystem. Furtheer investigattion on
medium m-rise buildding (Fig. 13 3) reveals thhat, with chaange of aspeect ratio of panel, variaation in
responnse is relatively stable in n flexible sidde. This obseervation is in
n line with tthe similar cases
c in
rigid ffloor model (Fig. 7). By y and large, the normalized frame shears parammeter obtaineed from
flexiblle floor moddel may be at a variance oof around (-)) 5% to (+) 15% relativve to such reesponse
compuuted through rigid floor model
m (Fig. 11).
To achieve furrther insightt into the im mpact of flooor flexibilitty, frame shhear obtained from
dynammic analysis (response sp pectrum) usiing rigid andd flexible flooor model iss compared. Frame
shear obtained froom flexible floor diaphrragm modell (for varyin ng thicknesss of floor sllabs) is
normalized to thaat of rigid floor system m and preseented in Fig g. 14 for M MIR-7 and MIR-8.
M
Compaarison suggeests that the seismic
s respoonse may altter by around
d 10% due too floor flexib bility in
practiccal range of interest. Ord der of such cchange in ressponse is gennerally similaar in all storries and
reducees in high-rise flexible systems.

Fig. 11 Variiation of norm


malized frame shear in perim
meter frames
702 Rana Rooy and Somen
n Mahato

Fig. 12 Co-eefficient of vaariation of norm


malized perim hear due to chaange of floor
meter frame sh
fl
flexibility (slabb thickness = 100, 150 & 25
50 mm) for saample buildinggs

Fig. 13 Variatioon of normaliized frame shhear in perimeeter frames off medium-risee buildings with
w
chhange of bay leength (lateral load profile: L
LP I)

5. Influence of accidental
a torsion
t

In view of the prevailing controversy on the imp plication of accidental


a toorsional provvisions,
impactt of the samee on both rigiid and flexibble floor buildings with seetback are seeparately evaaluated.
Proceddure to incluude the effectt of accidenttal torsion th
hrough ELF is already exxplained. It maym be
noted that there exxists no geneeral census aas to how su uch accidenttal eccentriciity be accouunted in
Equivaleent lateral forcce method for buildings witth setback: adequacy in elasstic range 703

Figg. 14 Variatioon of normalized frame sshear (CQCfflexible/CQCrigid) in perim


meter frames of
meedium & high rise buildingss (lateral load profile: LP I))

Figg. 15 Variation of normalizzed frame sheaar in perimeteer frames of buildings


b moddeled as rigid and
a
fleexible floor (150thk.) system
m with and wiithout includin
ng accidental eccentricity (L
LP-I)

dynam mic analysis. It is proposeed, on the onne hand, to peerform dynam mic analysiss by mathematically
shifting CM at eacch floor by an amount off accidental eccentricity
e from
f originaal CM. On thhe other
hand, ssuperpositionn of results due
d to appliccation of staatic torsional moments eqqual to lateraal force
times tthe accidenttal eccentriciity to the ressults from dynamic
d anallysis of origginal system is also
704 Rana Rooy and Somen
n Mahato

Fiig. 16 Variatioon of normalizzed frame sheaar in perimeteer frames of buildings modeeled as rigid and
a
fleexible floor (1150thk.) system with and w
without includiing accidentall eccentricity along with in
nfill
waall (opening percentages:
p 0%, 50% & 1000% and LP-I))

permittted. Unfortuunately, it is well-establisshed that theese two approaches do noot yield conccordant
resultss (De Le Lleera and Chop pra 1994). Inn this backdrrop, the seco ond approachh is adopted d herein
follow
wing NBCC-995 (User’s Guide-G NBC C 1995). Succh approach has also beeen used elsewhere
(Harassimowicz andd Goel 1998)).
Thrree, six andd nine storey y buildings (MIR 4, MIR 7 and MIR M 8) are aanalyzed assuming
accidenntal eccentriicity β equalss to 0.1 (stepp 3 of section
n 3). Height--wise distribuution of laterral load
is assuumed to connform to LP--I. Buildingss are modeleed as both riigid and flexxible floor systems s
(slab tthickness asssumed 150 mm).
m Responnse due to acccidental ecccentricity is superimposeed with
those ffrom ELF based
b analysiis conductedd at the excllusion of acccidental ecceentricity as already
presennted. Such efffect is also suitably inclluded in the results of dynamic anallysis. Subseq quently,
responnse quantities obtained fromf ELF iss normalized d by those from
f responnse spectrum m based
analysis.
Figg. 15 presentts such norm malized sheaar of perimeeter frames of o MIR 4, M MIR 7 and MIR 8
accounnting the efffect of accidental ecceentricity. Sim milar quantiities withouut the inclussion of
accidenntal eccentricity are alsso superimpoosed therein n. On close scrutiny, it transpires that the
impactt of accidenttal eccentriciity is marginnal for both flexible
f and stiff
s side elem ments. Influence of
accidenntal eccentriicity in preseence of infilll wall is alsso reviewed in the limiteed form (mo odel no.
MIR 7 is consideered). Effectt of openingg in the inffill owing to o the doors and windo ows are
accounnted in such study throug gh considerinng an openin ng of 0%, 50 0% and 100% % in the infiill wall.
Resultts of such casse studies (Fiig. 16) corrobborate the eaarlier trend.
Equivaleent lateral forcce method for buildings witth setback: adequacy in elasstic range 705

Fiig. 17 Variatiion of normaalized frame sshear in periimeter framess of low-rise building (Lo
oad
prrofile: LP-I)

6. Pro
oposals forr design

In oorder to recoognize the addequacy of coode torsionaal provisions with ELF inn the contextt of set-
back bbuildings, sallient results are re-formaatted in the form
f of a barr chart (Fig. 17). In view
w of the
responnse summarizzed, it is perrceived that the ELF in conjunction with static ttorsional pro ovisions
(considdering = 1..5) may be adequately
a ussed to estimaate frame sheear in flexiblle side. Howwever, δ
equals to 0.5 may often overesstimate the rresponse by around 25% %. Lateral loaad distributio
on over
the heiight of the building
b shouuld conform to LP-I for design.
d Maxiimum inter-sstory drift may
m also
be reassonably assessed by ELF F for systemss with and wiithout infill.
Perrformance off code-torsio onal provisioons through ELF is exam mined hitherrto in termss of the
compliiance with the critical perimeter frame respo onse only. However,
H fo
for the purp pose of
satisfactory designn, forces in all other fraames are alsso needed to o be estimateed with reassonable
accuraacy. Thus, thhe normalizeed frame sheear computeed from ELF F and dynam mic analysis for all
framess are review wed. For thiss purpose, reesults of EL LF conducted on MIR4,, MIR7 and d MIR8
modeleed as rigid floor
fl bare fraames are com mpared to thee those from dynamic annalysis. Valuees of ,
 and  are respecttively chosen n as 1.5, 0.5 and 0.1 whiile lateral loaad profile is assumed as LP-I in
ELF aanalysis. Variiation in resp ponse expresssed in perceentage for diifferent fram mes are furnished in
Fig. 188 in a comprrehensible fo ormat. Variattion in resultts beyond ±1 10%, as obseerved only at a a few
locatioons, are encirrcled while thhe same betw ween ±[5-10]% are highllighted for fuurther scrutin ny. This
revealss that ELF can reasonably predictt dynamic response r of setback sysstems with certain
excepttions in the vicinity of the t setback in particularr. Seismic fo orce may bee estimated with
w an
upper bbound error of around +2 25% (for low w to medium m-rise system ms) while succh deviation may be
on thee order of -15% (in loweer story of sstiff side). Fu urther, in thee upper story
ry levels of flexible
f
perimeeter frames, response
r maay be underesstimated by around 6% (for ( low-risee) to 11% (fo or high-
rise). IIt may, howeever, be noteed that desiggn force is regulated
r by an appropriiate combinaation of
dead load, live loaad and seism mic loads andd in that con ntext, differeence in preddicted seismiic force
even oon the order of 25% may typically aalter the dessign force by y only 9.7% (as observeed from
samplee case study on MIR-7).
706 Rana Rooy and Somen
n Mahato

Fig.. 18 Overall peerformance off ELF in typiccal setback building frames

In vieww of the rellatively insiggnificant imppact of floorr flexibility and consideering the associated
rigor too incorporatee such effectt, rigid diaphhragm model seems to be a pragmaticc choice for real-life
r
designn at least forr the class of systems sttudied. Limiited study also reflects tthat the ‘dessign for
accidenntal eccentrricity is likeely to be inneffectual’ and may no ot be consiidered at all. This
observvation is akinn to the recom
mmendationss made elsew where (Paulay y 2001, Priesstley et al. 20
007).

nclusions
7. Con

In tthe context of
o relative coomplexity too carry out dynamic
d analysis in routtine seismic design,
codifieed torsional provisions with
w ELF m may be usefu ul. Such prov visions, althoough not ex
xplicitly
stated, are generallly believed to be appliccable to build dings with regular asym mmetry. The present
study eexamines thee applicabilitty of such coodified stand
dards for systtems with sett-back. To th
his end,
the currrent investigation systematically exxamines the response of a number oof systems co overing
represeentative configuration off elevation iirregularity through
t ELFF and responnse spectrum m based
methodds. A compaarison of the response revveals the follo owing broadd conclusionss:
Equivalent lateral force method for buildings with setback: adequacy in elastic range 707

1. The study, through comprehensive case studies, observes that the code-specified ELF along
with torsional provisions may be used, contrary to the conventional notion, for seismic design of
setback buildings. Values of dynamic amplification factors  and  may be adopted respectively as
1.5 and 0.5 along with a height-wise distribution of lateral load conforming to LP-I. Influence of
accidental torsion and diaphragm flexibility may be ignored in practice. This code-static procedure
may yield some concentration of seismic forces in the surroundings of the setback. However, such
concentration may generally be acceptable keeping in view the overall design force (combination
of dead, live, seismic loads etc.) and inherent uncertainties of seismic design.
2. Inter-story drift can be reasonably estimated for set-back buildings through employing code
torsional provisions with ELF assuming a lateral load profile as per LP-I.
3. The observations outlined above are applicable for buildings with and without infill. It seems
from the limited study that, beyond 25% to 30% opening in infill wall, response of the flexible
side tends to be similar to those for bare frames particularly in medium to high-rise systems.
Response of stiff side, in contrast, appears to be relatively sensitive to the infill percentage.
However, pending further investigation confirming the generality of such observation, modeling of
infill wall, as it exists, is desirable.
4. Simple irregularity indices proposed elsewhere (Karavasilis et al. 2008) appears to be in
some compliance with the dynamic characteristics of the system. This justifies the characterization
of set-back buildings in terms of such simple parameters from a more conceptual standpoint.
Further it seems that the code-specified empirical formulae for building period need introspection.
In sum, the present study establishes that the ELF may be used for the design of vertically
irregular systems, with certain experience and judgment, particularly in the vicinity of the setback.
Seismic design strategy inherently relies on ductile response and hence the performance of such
systems designed by both the approaches (ELF and response spectrum based) need be evaluated in
inelastic range in future course of studies.

Acknowledgements

Financial assistance, credited to the first author from a Research Project sponsored by
University Grants Commission, Government of India [No. F. 41-193/2012(SR)], is gratefully
acknowledged.

References

ASCE 7 (2005), Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Aranda, G.R. (1984), “Ductility demands for R/C frames irregular in elevation”, Proceedings of the Eighth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, SanFran cisco, U.S.A., 4, 559-566.
Athanassiadou, C.J. (2008), “Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular in elevation”, Eng. Struct.,
30, 1250-1261.
Al-Ali, A.A.K. and Krawinkler, H. (1998), Effects of Vertical Irregularities on Seismic Behavior of Building
Structures, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, U.S.A, Report No. 130.
Asteris P.G. (2003), “Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames”, J. Struct. Eng., 129, 1071-
1079.
708 Rana Roy and Somen Mahato

Basu, D. and Jain, S.K. (2004), “Seismic analysis of asymmetric buildings with flexible floor diaphragms”,
J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 130(8), 1169-1176.
Basu, D. and Jain, S.K. (2006), “Alternative method to locate centre of rigidity in asymmetric buildings”,
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynamics, 36, 965-973.
Basu, D. and Gopalakrishnan, N. (2008), “Analysis for preliminary design of a class of torsionally coupled
buildings with horizontal setbacks”, Eng. Struct., 30, 1272-1291.
Cheung, V.W.T. and Tso, W.K. (1986), “Eccentricity in irregular multistorey building”, Canadian J. Civil
Eng., 13(1), 46-52.
Cheung, V.W.T. and Tso, W.K. (1987), “Lateral Load analysis for buildings with setback”, J. Struct. Eng.,
113(2), 209-227.
Chopra, A.K. (2007), Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Pearson
Education Inc and Dorling Kindersley Publishing Inc.
Das, S. and Nau, J.M. (2003), “Seismic design aspects of vertically irregular reinforced concrete buildings”,
Earthq. Spectra, 19(3), 455-477.
Eurocode 8 (2004), Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part-1: general rules, seismic actions
and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
ETABS, Integrated software for structural analysis and design, Version V9.7., Computers & Structures, Inc,
Berkeley, California.
FEMA 306 (1998), Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall building, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.
Goel, R.K. and Chopra, A.K. (1993), “Seismic code analysis of buildings without locating centres of
rigidity”, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 119(10), 3039-3055.
Goel, R.K. and Chopra, A.K. (1998), “Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings”, J. Struct.
Eng. ASCE, 123(11), 1454-1461.
Harasimowicz, A.P. and Goel, R.K. (1998), “Seismic code analysis of multi-storey asymmetric buildings”,
Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 27(2), 173-185.
Humar, J.L. and Wright, E.W. (1977), “Earthquake response of steel-framed multistorey buildings with set-
backs”, Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 5(1), 15-39.
Humar, J.L. (1984), “Design for seismic torsional forces”, Can. J. Civil Eng., 12(2), 150-163.
Hejal, R. and Chopra, A.K. (1987), Earthquake response of torsionally-coupled buildings, University of
California, Berkeley, Report No. UCB/EERC-87/20.
IS 1893-1984 (2002), Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
International Association for Earthquake Engineering (1997), Regulations for seismic design - A world list,
IAEE, Tokyo.
International Conference of Building Officials (1997), Uniform building Code; 1997 edition, Whittier,
California.
International Code council (2003), “International building code; 2003 edition”, ICC, Falls Church, Va.
Jiang, W., Hutchinson, G.L. and Chandler, A.M. (1993), “Definitions of static eccentricity for design of
asymmetric shear buildings”, Eng. Struct., 15(3), 167-178.
Karavasilis, T.L. Bazeos, N. and Beskos, D.E. (2008), “Seismic response of plane steel MRF with setbacks:
estimation of inelastic deformation demands”, Construct. Steel Struct., 64, 644 - 654.
Kappos, A.J and Scott, S.G. (1998), “Seismic assessment of an R/C building with setbacks using nonlinear
static and dynamic analysis procedures. In: Booth, editor. Seismic design practice into the next century”,
Rotterdam: Balkema.
Kose, M.M. (2009), “Parameters affecting the fundamental period of RC buildings with infill walls”, Eng.
Struct., 31, 93-102.
Kusumastuti, D., Reinhorn, A.M. and Rutenberg, A. (1998), A versatile experimentation model for study of
structures near collapse applied to seismic evaluation of irregular structures, Technical Report MCEER-
05-0002.
Makarios, T. and Anastassiadis, A. (1998), “Real and fictitious elastic axes of multi-storey buildings:
Equivalent lateral force method for buildings with setback: adequacy in elastic range 709

theory”, Struct. Design Tall Build., 7(1), 33-55.


Mahato, S., Chakraborty, P. and Roy, R. (2012), “Uncertainty of code-torsional provisions to mitigate
seismic hazards of buildings with setback”, Proceedings of the Int. Symposium on Engineering under
Uncertainty: Safety Assessment and Management (ISEUSAM).
Mahato, S. (2012), Applicability of codal provisions to regulate seismic torsion: multistory buildings with
setback, M.E. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Bengal Engineering and Science University,
Shibpur.
Moehle, J.P. and Alarcon, L.F. (1986), “Seismic analysis methods for irregular buildings”, J. Struct. Eng.,
ASCE, 112(1), 35-52.
Mazzolani, F.M and Piluso, V. (1996), Theory and design of seismic resistant steel frames, FN & SPON an
Imprint of Chapman & Hall, London, New York.
Mainstone, R.J. and Weeks, G.A. (1970), “The influences of bounding frame on the racking stiffness and
strength of brick walls”, Proceedings of the 2nd international brick masonry conference.
Mainstone, R.J. (1971), On the stiffness and strength of infilled frames, ProcInst Civil Eng Sup; 57-90.
National University of Mexico (1990), “Design manual for earthquake engineering to the construction
regulations for the Federal District of Mexico City”.
New Zealand standard NZS 4203 (1984), “Code of practice for general structural design loadings for
buildings”, Standards Assoc. of New Zealand, Willington, New Zealand.
National Research Council of Canada (1990), National building code of Canada, Associate Committee on
the NationalBuilding Code, Ottawa, Ontario.
Paulay, T. (2001), “Some design principles relevant to torsional phenomena in ductile buildings”, J. Earthq.
Engg, 5(3), 273-308.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007), Displacement-based seismic design of structures,
IUSS PRESS, Pavia, Italy.
Pinto, D. and Costa, A.G. (1995), “Influence of vertical irregularities on seismic response of buildings”,
Proceeding of the 10th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema.
Poole, R.A. (1977), “Analysis for torsion employing provisions of NZRS 4203 1974”, Bull. New Zealand
Soc. Earthq. Eng., 10(4), 219-225.
Riddell, R. and Vasquez, J. (1984), “Existence of centres of resistance and torsional uncoupling of
earthquake response of buildings”, Proceeding of the 8th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., 4, 187-194.
Romao, X., Costa, A. and Delgado, R. (2004), “Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete frames with
setbacks”, Proceeding of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, 2443.
Sarkar, P., Prasad, M.A. and Menon, D. (2010), “Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped building frames”,
Eng. Struct., 32, 2175-2182.
Stafford Smith, B. (1962), “Lateral stiffness of infilled frames”, J.Struct. Eng. ASCE, 88, 183-193.
Stafford Smith, B. and Carter, C. (1969), “A method of analysis for infilled frames”, ProcInst Civil Eng., 44,
31-48.
SAP (2000). Integrated software for structural analysis and design, Version 14.0., Computers & Structures,
Inc., Berkeley, California.
Soni, D.P. and Mistri, B.B. (2006), “Qualitative review of seismic response vertically irregular building
frames”, J. Earthq. Tech., 43(4), 121-132.
Shahrooz, B.M. and Moehle, J.P. (1990), “Seismic response and design of setback buildings”, J. Struct.
Eng., ASCE, 116(5), 1423-1439.
Smith, B.S. and Vezina, S. (1985), “Evaluation of centres of resistance of multistorey building structures”,
Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 79(4), Part 2, 623-635.
Tremblay, R. and Poncet, L. (2005), “Seismic performance of concentrically braced steel frames in
multistory buildings with mass irregularity”, J. Struct. Eng., 131,1363-1375
Tso, W.K. (1990), “Static eccentricity concept for torsional moment estimations”, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE,
116(5), 1199-1212.
User’s Guide (1995) NBC 1995 structural commentaries (Part 4), National Research Council of Canada,
710 Rana Roy and Somen Mahato

Ottawa.
Wood, S.L. (1986), “Experiments to study the earthquake response of reinforced concrete frames with
setbacks”, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, 111.
Wood, S.L. (1992), “Seismic response of RC frames with irregular profiles”, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 118(2),
545-566.
Wong, C.M. and Tso, W.K. (1994), “Seismic loading for buildings with setbacks”, Can. J. Civil Eng., 21(5),
863-871.

IT

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi